In the past, workers with average skills, doing an average job, could earn an average lifestyle. But, today, average is officially over. Being average just won’t earn you what it used to. It can’t when so many more employers have so much more access to so much more above average cheap foreign labor, cheap robotics, cheap software, cheap automation and cheap genius. Therefore, everyone needs to find their extra — their unique value contribution that makes them stand out in whatever is their field of employment. Average is over.

Okay– so why are there so many average or sub-par movies around?  Because those all come attached with Big Names.  If you are trying to get noticed today you either need Big Name attachments or an outstanding script.  A good script won’t make it any more.  A great script probably won’t either.  You need an outstanding script.  You need to be, in sports terms, a number one draft pick.

It’s more important than ever to hone your craft.  Be meticulous in your presentation. Be fresh. Be original. And don’t fall into common kinds of errors that derail your story enough to make it a “pass” rather than a “highly recommend.”

I’ve distilled everything I know about story analysis into a short eBook.  It will be my first Kindle, Amazon, iBooks, Sony Reader, Nook publication.  It’s priced at $4.99 for an introductory time.  Let me know if you’d like to be on the pre-order list. You can contact me through the site or leave a comment– I can get your email address on the back end.  It’s not published in the comment.

Full and fabulous article and pictures here http://blogs.publishersweekly.com/blogs/PWxyz/?p=9288

I believe fiction is a mirror in which see ourselves– that is why “author’s intent” is never as important as “reader’s (or viewer’s) perception”.

I am always looking for interesting articles to pass a long.  I found this one at Writer Beware.  Writer Beware is a publishing industry watchdog group sponsored by the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America with additional support from the Mystery Writers of America.  It shines a bright light into the dark corners of the shadow-world of literary scams, schemes, and writing pitfalls.

This article definitely echoes the fundamental principles taught in The One Hour Screenwriter eCourse.

… In study after study, researchers have found no evidence for innate talent as the prerequisite for success. Nor have they found that hard work alone makes certain people great. While successful people— those who achieve excellence in a domain— do work very hard, it’s how they work that distinguishes them from others. It turns out that just putting in hours and hours at your chosen work is not enough; the only way to get better is to make sure you’re devoting those hours to what the researchers call “deliberate practice.”

… When most people practice, they repeat things they already know how to do. But when those who become experts in their field engage in practice, they spend most of their time doing things they don’t already know how to do. They are constantly challenging themselves to improve, to do things better, to gain additional skills. Deliberate practice isn’t just hacking around; it’s hard work, which demands reaching for objectives that are always just out of reach. The only way to attain those objectives is through immense amounts of repetition. Ted Williams, the great Red Sox hitter, used to take swing after practice swing until his hands bled. Larry Bird, the legendary basketball player, got up at 6 a.m. every morning in high school, went to the gym, and shot 500 free throws.

… To get the most benefit from practice, keep these two principles in mind: repetition and reflection. Repetition— lots of it— is required to make skills automatic, so that when you sit down to write your novel (or screenplay), they are ready to work for you. Reflection—what did I learn today? What do I need to learn next?—keeps you on track in your pursuit of excellence.

If all this sounds like a lot of work— well, it is, just as becoming a professional athlete or musician is a lot of work. But if you love to write— love it as much as Ted Williams loved to hit or Larry Bird loves to play basketball— then practice is a kind of dedicated play, a source of pleasure and fulfillment. And if you are willing to shift your focus from getting published (or produced) to becoming an excellent writer, then there’s a very good chance that, eventually, your skills will take you to the “big leagues” of the writing world.

Recommended Reading:

Geoff Colvin, Talent is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers From Everyone Else

Daniel Coyle, The Talent Code

Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers

David Shenk, The Genius Myth

You can read the full article here– http://accrispin.blogspot.com/2010/09/guest-blog-post-how-deliberate-practice.html

Barbara Baig has taught writing for over twenty-five years and is the author of How To Be a Writer: Building Your Creative Skills Through Practice and Play (Writer’s Digest Books). She offers free practice-based lessons for beginning and struggling writers at www.wherewriterslearn.com.

You are about write a story. How shall it begin? Perhaps there is a single conflict that needs to be resolved. Will my story have a happy ending or a sad ending? Perhaps the conflict has one of several distinct oppositions: man vs nature, man vs. technology, man vs. god or man vs. self.

.

In 1894, French critic Georges Polti recognized thirty-six possible plots, which included conflicts such as Supplication, Pursuit, Self-sacrifice, Adultery, Revolt, the Enigma, Abduction, and Disaster. In 1928, dime novelist William Wallace Cook, author of Plotto: The Master Book of All Plots, did him one better, cataloging every narrative he could think of through a method that bordered on madness. His final plot count? 1,462.

.

While still a young director in England, Alfred Hitchcock requested the book from America, and the creator of the courtroom drama Perry Mason claimed he had learned a great deal from it. In 1931, screenwriter Wycliffe Hill declared that he had invented a “Plot Robot,” which turned out to be nothing more than cardboard wheel of options that would help you choose a plot in the same way you might choose a color for your living room.

.

Plotto was far more complex, and despite its careful categorization, still exceedingly hard to understand. It’s a narrative Dewey Decimal System of sorts, where each character-type is given a letter: the man is A, the woman is B, their relatives, such as a father or mother, would be F-A or M-B, and anything mysterious, be it a stranger or a strange object, is given the designation X, that ultimate letter of mystery. Conflicts have their own groupings, such as Love and Courtship, Married Life, Mystery, Misfortune, Idealism, Personal Limitations, Revelation, Helpfulness, Craftiness Stimulation, Mistaken Judgement, and Deliverance.

.

Each narrative in Plotto begins with “Masterplots” which are made up of several beginning, middle, and end clauses (e.g. “A person in love > Falling in love when certain obligations forbid love > Pays a grim penalty in an unfortunate undertaking.”) These permutations, which can number in the hundreds, are subdivided once again according to character and conflict into specific situations, the more than 1,462 individual plots that make up the bulk of Plotto.

Let’s look at the simple issue of who is the protagonist in Tintin. The protagonist in a story is the central character whose actions set off the chain of events that pushes the story forward. So far so good.  Tintin buys a model ship that holds a long-hidden clue and sets off a chase for treasure. The protagonist must have a physical goal in the story that he or she actively pursues.  The goal for young Tintin is clear enough, solve the mystery and find the treasure. This is what TinTin wants.

What the character needs is an inner ache or yearning that the character is unaware of, denies, suppresses or ignores. It is a deeper, more abstract or intangible human longing. It is not physical or concrete. It is an emotional or spiritual urge or inner call to live up to one’s higher nature. For example: to stand up for one’s beliefs, to become a better parent, to forgive another, to act with integrity, to find one’s faith, to become more altruistic, to be a better friend, to face the truth, to love unselfishly, etc.

To embrace the need, the character must abandon the specific goal (or object of desire) and address more fundamental and far-reaching human concern. One of the most common problems with scripts that don’t work is the lack of a clear and specific want vs. a deep and powerful inner longing.

This is the case in Tintin.  There is plenty of external conflict in the chase. There is a good amount of relationship conflict in the centuries old feud between the Haddocks and Rackhams.  But there is no inner conflict for Tintin. There is nothing the boy needs to over come in himself in order to succeed.  He falters for a very brief moment late in the film but is immediately cheered up and on his way without missing a beat.

Captain Haddock goes from being an irresponsible drunk with low self esteem to someone who sobers up and rediscovers his own self-worth.  He is no longer intimidated by his illustrious ancestor and realizes he has courage too.  Tintin, like the young  protagonist in War Horse, is as plucky, courageous, determined and resourceful in the beginning of the film as he is at the end of the film.

At the climax of a film the question is, who makes the biggest sacrifice? Who pays the biggest price? Who undergoes the most powerful personal transformation. That person is the protagonist. It doesn’t matter how big a star or how well known a figure is “supposed” to be the protagonist.  It doesn’t matter how much screen time the “supposed” protagonist has.  If some other character makes a bigger personal sacrifice, is more powerfully transformed or pays a bigger emotional price, he or she is the protagonist.  If a secondary character plays this role the film will disconnect emotionally. That is the case with Tintin.

Perhaps the character worked better in a comic strip where Tintin acts more as a narrator/journalist telling someone else’s story.  But this is a movie and the requirements are different.  Mistaking which character is the protagonist is one of the most common reasons why a film doesn’t work emotionally for the audience. Spielberg should know better.

http://mashable.com/2012/01/17/sopa-dangerous-opinion/

….By the time you’re a social worker for 10 years, what you realize is that connection is why we’re here. It’s what gives purpose and meaning to our lives. This is what it’s all about. It doesn’t matter whether you talk to people who work in social justice and mental health and abuse and neglect, what we know is that connection, the ability to feel connected, is — neurobiologically that’s how we’re wired — it’s why we’re here. So I thought, you know what, (as a researcher) I’m going to start with connection. Well, you know that situation where you get an evaluation from your boss, and she tells you 37 things you do really awesome, and one thing — an “opportunity for growth?” And all you can think about is that opportunity for growth, right? Well, apparently this is the way my work went as well, because, when you ask people about love, they tell you about heartbreak. When you ask people about belonging, they’ll tell you their most excruciating experiences of being excluded. And when you ask people about connection, the stories they told me were about disconnection.

So very quickly — really about six weeks into this research — I ran into this unnamed thing that absolutely unraveled connection in a way that I didn’t understand or had never seen. And so I pulled back out of the research and thought, I need to figure out what this is. And it turned out to be shame. And shame is really easily understood as the fear of disconnection: Is there something about me that, if other people know it or see it, that I won’t be worthy of connection? The things I can tell you about it: it’s universal; we all have it. The only people who don’t experience shame have no capacity for human empathy or connection. No one wants to talk about it, and the less you talk about it the more you have it. What underpinned this shame, this (fear) “I’m not good enough,” — which we all know that feeling: “I’m not blank enough. I’m not thin enough, rich enough, beautiful enough, smart enough, promoted enough.” The thing that underpinned this was excruciating vulnerability, this idea of, in order for connection to happen, we have to allow ourselves to be seen, really seen.

…. If I roughly took the people I interviewed and divided them into people who really have a sense of worthiness — that’s what this comes down to, a sense of worthiness — they have a strong sense of love and belonging — and folks who struggle for it, and folks who are always wondering if they’re good enough. There was only one variable that separated the people who have a strong sense of love and belonging and the people who really struggle for it. And that was, the people who have a strong sense of love and belonging believe they’re worthy of love and belonging. That’s it. They believe they’re worthy. And to me, the hard part of the one thing that keeps us out of connection is our fear that we’re not worthy of connection, was something that, personally and professionally, I felt like I needed to understand better. So what I did is I took all of the interviews where I saw worthiness, where I saw people living that way, and just looked at those.

What do these people have in common? … What they had in common was a sense of courage. And I want to separate courage and bravery for you for a minute. Courage, the original definition of courage, when it first came into the English language — it’s from the Latin word cor, meaning heart — and the original definition was to tell the story of who you are with your whole heart. And so these folks had, very simply, the courage to be imperfect. They had the compassion to be kind to themselves first and then to others, because, as it turns out, we can’t practice compassion with other people if we can’t treat ourselves kindly. And the last was they had connection, and — this was the hard part — as a result of authenticity, they were willing to let go of who they thought they should be in order to be who they were, which you have to absolutely do that for connection.

The other thing that they had in common was this: They fully embraced vulnerability. They believed that what made them vulnerable made them beautiful. They didn’t talk about vulnerability being comfortable, nor did they really talk about it being excruciating — as I had heard it earlier in the shame interviewing. They just talked about it being necessary. They talked about the willingness to say, “I love you” first, the willingness to do something where there are no guarantees, the willingness to breathe through waiting for the doctor to call after your mammogram. They’re willing to invest in a relationship that may or may not work out. They thought this was fundamental.

… And I think there’s evidence — and it’s not the only reason this evidence exists, but I think it’s a huge cause — we are the most in-debt, obese, addicted and medicated adult cohort in U.S. history. The problem is — and I learned this from the research — that you cannot selectively numb emotion. You can’t say, here’s the bad stuff. Here’s vulnerability, here’s grief, here’s shame, here’s fear, here’s disappointment. I don’t want to feel these. I’m going to have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin. I don’t want to feel these…. You can’t numb those hard feelings without numbing the other affects, your emotions. You cannot selectively numb. So when we numb those, we numb joy, we numb gratitude, we numb happiness. And then we are miserable, and we are looking for purpose and meaning, and then we feel vulnerable, so then we have a couple of beers and a banana nut muffin. And it becomes this dangerous cycle.

… This is what I have found: to let ourselves be seen, deeply seen, vulnerably seen; to love with our whole hearts, even though there’s no guarantee — and that’s really hard, and I can tell you as a parent, that’s excruciatingly difficult — to practice gratitude and joy in those moments of terror, when we’re wondering, “Can I love you this much? Can I believe in this this passionately? Can I be this fierce about this?” just to be able to stop and, instead of catastrophizing what might happen, to say, “I’m just so grateful, because to feel this vulnerable means I’m alive.” And the last, which I think is probably the most important, is to believe that we’re enough. Because when we work from a place, I believe, that says, “I’m enough,” then we stop screaming and start listening, we’re kinder and gentler to the people around us, and we’re kinder and gentler to ourselves.

The film is beautifully shot but is low on emotional impact and, strangely, low on sacrifice.  Both the boy and the horse survive by a serious of amazing and miraculous coincidences.  A mediocre script in even the hand of  a master director pumped up by an overly emotional score still makes a mediocre movie.

How did War Horse go so wrong?

What the main character in a movie wants is a clear and simple goal.  It is something that directly benefits the protagonist that he or she can physically have or obtain. It is concrete. It is specific. It is the finite object of the character’s personal desire. In War Horse the boy’s want or goal is to find the horse and bring him home. To obtain the want, however, the character must abandon the need.  That personal conflict is the essence of good drama.

What the character needs is an inner ache or yearning that the character is unaware of, denies, suppresses or ignores. It is a deeper, more abstract or intangible human longing. It is not physical or concrete. It is an emotional or spiritual urge or inner call to live up to one’s higher nature. For example: to stand up for one’s beliefs, to become a better parent, to forgive another, to act with integrity, to find one’s faith, to become more altruistic, to be a better friend, to face the truth, to love unselfishly, etc.

To embrace the need, the character must abandon the specific goal (or object of desire) and address more fundamental and far-reaching human concern. One of the most common problems with scripts that don’t work is the lack of a clear and specific want vs. a deep and powerful inner longing.

That is the case in War Horse.  There is plenty of external conflict in the family’s poverty and the horrors of war.  There is a good amount of relationship conflict– different people in the story clash about all sorts of things. But there is no inner conflict. There is nothing the boy needs to over come in himself in order to succeed.  He is as plucky, courageous, determined and resourceful in the beginning of the film as he is at the end of the film.

It’s astonishing that in a film about war there is very little sacrifice for the good of others.  The boy is not changed by his experiences and no one else is much changed either.  The relentlessly upbeat ending is ridiculous in the face of the devastation of “The Great War” which so profoundly changed everyone and everything in Europe.

What the main character wants pulls us through the story. The need draws us deeper into or inside the character. If this bedrock conflict isn’t clear the script won’t add up to very much. Unfortunately, this is the case in War Horse.

They all meet challenges, reversals and opposition from someone or something along the way. Every character wants to be successful and do a generally good job. Likewise, in an elimination reality show, everyone is together in a group doing generally the same thing.  They all want to be successful and do a good job which, in the case of a reality show, means lasting long enough to win the big money prize by avoiding eviction.

Whether you are writing a scripted drama or producing an unscripted reality show, you have the same character problem: How do you differentiate each character and make each one a unique and compelling individual? The key is why characters do what they do, how they define doing a good job or a successful strategy and how they approach challenges, obstacles, work or what they love.

CELEBRITY CHEFS

In preparing for a recent consulting job, I wanted to illustrate the Character Types with real life individuals who are clearly defined characters in their own right and who each embody very different approach to life and work. The subjects had to have an international reputation since I was working with producers from a variety of different countries.

Celebrity chefs turned to be an effective example. Each person is doing approximately the same thing (discussing and/or demonstrating food, cooking or dining), they all want to be successful and generally do a good job.  How they define that job, for themselves, is vastly different.  Here’s how analyzing real people can help in creating a scripted drama or an unscripted reality show. The Character Types are the same whether applied to celebrity personalities or fictional characters.

Here is how the Character Types line up and my observations on each kind of real life Food Personality:

POWER OF CONSCIENCE

Jamie Oliver is a Power of Conscience character. He is a food crusader, his mission is to teach people the right things to eat and the proper, healthy approach to planning and cooking meals.  The name of his show is Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution: Campaign for Healthy Eating.  Here is what his American website has to say:

This food revolution is about saving America’s health by changing the way you eat. It’s not just a TV show, it’s a movement for you, your family and your community.

Oliver’s UK website is sub-headed “The Ministry of Food”.  He is not afraid to impose his views on others and has ignited a real row over the food served in schools in the UK.  Some mothers have reacted in protest.

Two angry mums are mocking Jamie Oliver’s healthy eating campaign by running a junk food service for school children.

Julie Critchlow and Sam Walker say youngsters are snubbing overpriced “low fat rubbish” dished up at school lunchtime.

So, using an old supermarket trolley, they are running daily deliveries of fish and chip lunches, pies, burgers and fizzy drinks, passing the food through a gap in a fence…

…(A)s environmental health officials and council chiefs were called in a bid to ban the mums Sam, 41, hit back: “This is all down to Jamie. I just don’t like him and what he stands for. He’s forcing our kids to become more picky about their food.

“Who does he think he is, all high and mighty? He can feed whatever he wants to his children but he should realise that other parents think differently.”  - The Daily Mirror

Power of Conscience characters believe they know instinctively if something is wrong, unjust, unfair, improper, corrupt or out of line. Their judgment and response is swift and immutable. They are propelled forward by personal outrage and moral indignation, usually on another’s behalf.

These characters believe they are their brother’s keeper. They feel responsible for the greater good and for doing good.   Jamie Oliver is believes food choices have serious moral implications for health and social responsibility.  When he is criticized, it is for a too strident, judgmental or preachy attitude.

POWER OF IDEALISM

Alain Ducasse has a very different approach to food.  He is a Power of Idealism character and a food artist.  Ducasse has had more Michelin stars awarded to his restaurants than any other chef in history.  His approach to cooking embodies the pursuit of opulence, excellence and the truly extraordinary so valued by Power of Idealism Character Types.

Ducasse uses only the finest ingredients to create the most refined and exquisite dishes possible.  The presentation of each dish must border on being a work of art.  Health concerns, meeting proper dietary requirements or moral issues about animal products, like foie gras, don’t enter into his thinking.  Here is the preamble to an article about one of Ducasse’s restaurants:

A three-star restaurant in Europe, so rated by the Michelin guide to denote the achievement of the highest level of culinary success by a European chef, has for many years been the setting for extraordinary expectations, bordering on perfection. The clients who step into these fine rooms gladly pay dearly for the honor of being served practically flawless dishes in the most exquisite environment imaginable. – Restaurant Insider

Power of Idealism characters have high standards and seek excellence in whatever they do. They appreciate the finer things in life and special luxuries large and small. They strive for aesthetic perfection in all areas. They abhor anything they consider to be coarse, gross, common, ordinary, mediocre, inelegant or ungallant.

These characters believe that what is perfect but unavailable or unattainable is infinitely more desirable than what is flawed but possible or achievable. They are always reaching for the unreachable star.  Ducasse seeks the extraordinary, the refined and the exquisite.  When he is criticized, is for being too fussy, too pretentious or too mannered with food.

POWER OF EXCITEMENT

Anthony Bourdain takes a completely different approach to food presenting.  He is a Power of Excitement character.  He values exotic adventure, trying anything new, experimenting with the outrageous and outlandish while having a great sense of humor about facing the whole experience.  He is a food explorer.

In his television series, No Reservations, Bourdain seeks out exciting culinary adventures in some of the darkest corners, least accessible or dangerous  places on the map.  He and his television crew once had to be evacuated by the military from Beruit.  An interview with Bourdain reports:

(Eating) the warthog anus was the worst and yes it did make him very sick. But it’s also his philosophy that you can’t refuse. This is all the food the hunters of the warthog have and they are giving it to you, how can you say no?  There’s no corner of the globe too remote. No dish too disgusting to try … just once. No drink with too great an after burn.  - Av Club Website

Power of Excitement characters believe life is a playground and a grand adventure. They are innovators, explorers and merry pranksters. In whatever role these characters play, they are good humored, a bit reckless, endlessly optimistic and great fun.  Bourdain seeks out the strange, the unusual or anything off the beaten track for no other reason than to try something different.  When he is criticized it is for being too extreme and experimental in choosing food to present.

POWER OF LOVE

Nigella Lawson is a Power of Love character.  She is a food seducer.  Cooking is a sensual pleasure and the opportunity to nurture for her.  She is  often described as being “sexy and flirty” while working with or presenting food.  She celebrates her own voluptuous curves and says she takes her greatest joy in “feeding others”.  Here is how she describes her philosophy in one of her books:

The trouble with much modern cooking is not that the food it produces is not good, but that the mood it induces in the cook is one of skin-of-the-teeth efficiency, all briskness and little pleasure. Sometimes that’s the best we can manage, but to others we want to feel not like a postmodern, post feminist, overstretched modern woman but, rather, a domestic goddess, trailing nutmeggy fumes of baking pie in our languorous wake. So what I’m talking about is not being a domestic goddess, exactly, but feeling like one. – Domestic Goddess

Lawson’s culinary efforts have been described as decadent, succulent, passionate, luscious and lavish.

Lawson’s sexy roundness mixed with her speed-demon technique makes cooking dinner with Nigella look like a prelude to an orgy.  - The New York TImes

Her appeal is further described here:

Women like her, she says, “because I’m not thin”, while men who lack the domestic skills to unwrap a chip supper can watch her licking a fingerful of her signature Slut Red Raspberries in Chardonnay Jelly and wonder what they have been missing.  - The Telegraph

Power of Love characters, regardless of what they look like are innately sensual and sexy.  They are Earth Mothers or Nurturers regardless of their gender.  In her many television shows like Nigella Bites and Forever Summer with Nigella, Lawson presents food as a comfort, a pleasure and the abiding warmth of true sustenance.  Cooking is her way of giving pleasure to others.  When she is criticized it is for creating a kind of “Food Porn” that is a too voluptuous or over-stuffed feast for the senses.

POWER OF WILL

Gordon Ramsey is a Power of Will character.  He is a food bully.  His show, Hell’s Kitchen (US) and Kitchen Nightmares (UK), takes aim at underperforming restaurants which he, often in screaming drill sergeant manner, tries whips into shape.  He is an ex-trial-field footballer who has a a big, bold, explosive personality.  He is described here:

Ramsay bounds in, an aspirant Popeye with muscles bulging out of a blue T-shirt. He was named as television’s scariest personality in a recent Radio Times poll because of his talent for turning big men into trembling cry babies. – Waitrose.com

Here Ramsey is described in a review of an episode of his television show:

For the viewers it was just another example of the host’s bullish bluster – the sort of bad-mouthed, bare-knuckled assault that draws millions of viewers to Gordon Ramsay, turning him into one of the most famous people in America (and the UK).

Power of Will characters take what they want, fight for every inch of turf, refuse to show any weakness themselves and pounce decisively on the weakness of others. They have a kill or be killed mental framework for everything. They subscribe absolutely to the Law of the Jungle.  They believe it is better to be feared than to be loved. They never want to be seen as “soft” or vulnerable. They show no mercy and they expect none.

Gordon Ramsey sees food preparation as a battle on his television shows.  Only the strong survive and thrive.  When he is criticized, it is for being an arrogant bully who is insulting, abusive and humiliating toward others.

POWER OF REASON

Julia Child takes a completely different view of food and food presenting than all the other chefs above.  She is a Power of Reason character.  Her approach to cooking is a practical, feet-on-the-ground (in sensible shoes) mastering of basic techniques.  She famously demystified and simplified the intricacies of French cooking for millions of readers and viewers in the 1960s.  Child cataloged French cooking methods in her 700+ page encyclopedic Mastering the Art of French Cooking.   She was a serious cook of good solid food and disdained Julie Powell’s yearlong Julie and Julia project.

Publisher’s Weekly spoke to Judith Jones, Senior Editor and Vice President at Alfred A. Knopf, and Julia Child’s editor and confidante, who shared her recollection of Child’s feelings on Julie Powell’s blog:

Jones says Child did not approve of Powell’s cook-every-recipe-in-one-year project. The editor and author read Powell’s blog together (Julie and Julia, the book, was published a year after Child’s 2004 death). Julia said, “I don’t think she’s a serious cook.”  Jones thinks there was a generational difference between Powell and Child. “Flinging around four-letter words when cooking isn’t attractive, to me or Julia. She didn’t want to endorse it. What came through on the blog was somebody who was doing it almost for the sake of a stunt. She would never really describe the end results, how delicious it was, and what she learned. Julia didn’t like what she called ‘the flimsies.’ She didn’t suffer fools, if you know what I mean.”

Like all Power of Reason characters, Child used a precise scientific method to test, analyze and catalog French recipes that could be duplicated by amateur chefs.  Child respected French tradition while carefully explaining and making French technique accessible and understandable to the average cook.

She was extremely private and protective of her name.  She valued her objectivity and refused to endorse any products during her lifetime.  Child came to cooking very late and admitted to having no natural talent for the subject.  But she was willing to put in the work to acquire her skill.

Power of Reason characters see the world as a series of intellectual, practical or scientific problems, dilemmas or puzzles to be solved. They believe anything and everything can be explained rationally or solved logically. They examine the situation carefully, consult other expert opinions or past experiences and put their minds to the issue in a thorough and objective fashion.  Child was a beloved figure but if she was parodied or mocked it was for her personal and physical awkwardness, also a hallmark of Power of Reason characters.

POWER OF TRUTH

Michael Pollan is another entirely different food personality.  He is a Power of Truth character and a food investigator.  Pollan is a professor of science and environmental journalism at University of California, Berkeley and the author of The Botany of Desire, The Omnivore’s Dilemma and In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto.  He is a frequent television guest and interview subject.

The Omnivore’s Dilemma, his most famous book, is described as follows:

Pollan follows each of the food chains that sustain us— industrial food, organic or alternative food, and food we forage ourselves— from the source to a final meal, and in the process develops a definitive account of the American way of eating. – Michael Pollan Website

(F)or Pollan, the final outcome is less important than the meal’s journey from the soil to the plate. His super-meticulous reporting is the book’s strength— you’re not likely to get a better explanation of exactly where your food comes from. In fact, the first quarter of the book is devoted to a shocking, page-turning exposé of the secret life of that most seemingly innocent and benign of American crops, corn. – NY Times Book Review

Power of Truth characters believe the world is filled with potential hidden dangers and concealed pitfalls. This character’s philosophy might be stated: “Things are never what they seem.” “Question everything.” “Watch out for secret agendas and hidden pitfalls.”

These characters ask: “What does society demand, expect or value?” and then often set out to debunk or disprove the answer. They are compelled to uncover the concealed nature or (often rotten) underbelly of things.  When Pollan is criticized is for being too suspicious of and employing scare tactics about typical foods.

POWER OF AMBITION

Rachel Ray is a food entrepreneur and pitch-woman.  She is a Power of Ambition character. She has a can-do spirit, high energy level, relentlessly promotes her personal brand  and endorses everything from dog food to fast food sandwiches and coffee.  Although most chefs have endorsement contracts, Ray has taken her promotional activities to another level entirely.

Her approach to food is populist– sloppy, loud, cheerful and accessible.   Ray’s common-touch persona is a multimillion dollar enterprise with four hit Food Network shows, 12 million copies of her 13 bestselling cookbooks, a self-titled monthly magazine and an Emmy-winning daily talk show and a vast array of branded kitchen and home products. Her technique is described:

Rachael cuts corners and uses boxed ingredients. She abhors specialty ingredients. Her dishes only use what she can find at the local supermarket. She has received a lot of bad press for this, from the media as well as chefs.

In Rachael’s defense, this is reality for most Americans. As much as we’d like to whip up a gourmet meal every night, we simply don’t have the time. – About.com

Power of Ambition characters value popularity, achievement and financial success.  They are opportunists and naturally gravitate toward anything that will advance their personal agenda, enhance their popularity or further their desired aims.  They are adept at cutting corners, taking short-curts and doing things the quick and easy way.  When Ray is criticized it is for the relentless commercialization of herself and her cheap, fast and cheerful approach to food, some say she brings cooking down to the lowest common denominator.

POWER OF IMAGINATION

Benjamin Christie is a Food Ambassador.  He is a Power of Imagination character.  In the biography section on his website he explains he didn’t like the heat, pressure and conflict in a commercial restaurant kitchen.  His approach to food involves bringing the generally undervalued cuisine of Australia and its indigenous ingredients to the attention of world markets.  Here is how he explains the purpose of his organization on his website:

The Chefs Network is a food media news portal blog platform… working together for the best interests of the culinary industry, supporting those that choose to follow in our footsteps. The Chefs Network is a network of Chefs of all culinary styles & cultures. and offers networking opportunities, an inside link to professionals in the culinary industry, insight and information to foster increased culinary development, excellent opportunities for professional and personal development and lasting relationships with colleagues in the culinary industry.

Christie has a genial, supportive and non-judgemental persona.  He is a simple man with simple tastes.  When asked on his website what his favorite restaurants are and if people get nervous cooking for him he says:

I like a seafood restaurant which offers a simple grilled fish or prawns.  I’ve had people paranoid about cooking for me because I am a chef, but it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. (I’m) never critical.

Power of Imagination characters  dislike and avoid conflict, confrontation and aggressive behavior.  They hate to argue, row or fight.  These characters prefer to bring others together in working toward a unifying goal.  They naturally collect diverse individuals who share a common purpose despite significant outward differences and even conflicting agendas or opposing points of view.

These characters are patient, understanding and appreciative of those who tend to be overlooked, ignored or dismissed.  They are extremely tolerant and inclusive.  If Christie is criticized, it probably for not having a specific point of view or a more critical sensibility.

NINE CHARACTER TYPES

The Nine Character Types demonstrate how it is possible to engage in the same profession, have the same general interests and do very similar things in a very personally distinctive manner.  The most interesting dramas and the most compelling reality shows feature individuals with clear, sharply defined points of view and a very specific philosophy concerning how and why they do what the do.  Each character should approach life, love and work in a very individual way.

Andrew Zuckerman: On Curiosity, Rigor, and Learning As You Go from 99% on Vimeo.